1. User involvement in living lab research: experiences from an interdisciplinary study on future mobile applications De Moor, K. Berte,K, De Marez, L., Joseph, W., Deryckere, T. & Martens, L. MICT - WiCa - IBBT Ghent University Third International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making 16th- 17th October 2008

2. User involvement in living lab research Context and introduction ICT sector - Changing user roles growing pressure to innovate, to impress,... shorter product life cycles innovation as commodity implications for research and product development active and dynamic (co-)production ‘push’ versus ‘pull’ approaches user as innovator 'user-driven and user-generated innovation

3. User involvement in living lab research Theoretical perspectives Technology and society TECHNO PUSH techn. determinism diffusionism pro-innovation bias SOCIETY PULL STT SCOT domestication theory social determinism INTERACTION PUSH/PULL mutual shaping interactionism Traditional tension: user vs. technology

4. User involvement in living lab research Paradigm shift User-driven innovation more systematic + direct user involvement specific type of knowledge methodological reorientation (e.g. living labs) focus on future technologies, users and experiences interdisciplinary process complexity (Source: Sleeswijk Visser, Stappers et al., 2005: 123).

5. User involvement in living lab research Integration challenges and objectives Gap user- and technology-oriented approaches 1.continuous and adequate involvement of the user 2.integration and translation of knowledge from multidisciplinary process (bridging ‘the gap’) Objectives: illustrate how challenges might be tackled share results and experiences from own empirical research focus on 3 moments of ‘user involvement’ prior-to-launch PRIOR-TO-LAUNCH OPPORTUNITY IDENTIFICATION R&D TEST MARKET & PILOTING CONCEPT DESIGN CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT & EVALUATION INNOVATION DEVELOPMENT & PRODUCTION

6. User involvement in living lab research General methodology: ROMAS project Research on Mobile Applications and Services goal: user-oriented assessment of (future) wireless city applications & services living lab setting of i-City Hasselt (www.i-city.be)www.i-city.be panel of >1000 test users wireless application services (PDA, laptop, smart phones,...) interdisciplinary approach for testing technological applications supported by Flemish Government and industry partners:

7. User involvement in living lab research Results phase 1: opportunity identification Goal: identification of current and future mobile opportunities challenge: user involvement in early stage users’ limited imaginary capabilities desk research + focus groups focus on time spending framework and archetypes e.g. Archetype Patricia and some of her daily activities

8. User involvement in living lab research Results phase 1: opportunity identification List of 80 (future) mobile applications

9. User involvement in living lab research Results phase 1: opportunity identification Integration of research results for archetype Patricia mapping of new ideas x daily activities of the archetype indication of origin and status of the mobile application

10. User involvement in living lab research Results phase 2: concept evaluation Goal: creation of workable concepts + evaluation based on wild ideas adoption potential was evaluated by large audience (N:312) two steps: 1. application clustering + ranking  13 clusters 2. user clustering  6 clusters - e.g. mobile news: 3,11/5 - not very appealing - e.g. indication of parking spaces and availability: 4,23/5 - very appealing

11. User involvement in living lab research Results phase 3A: test market Mobile news: assessment of adoption potential 5 working applications + 1 idea only accessed 1-2 times by majority i-City panel illogical choice (not appealing) but influencing factors PSAP-Scale  technology specific adoption segmentation comparison with theoretical adoption segments (Rogers) N: 269

12. User involvement in living lab research Phase 3B: QoS optimisation vs. QoE Challenge: ‘bridging the gap’  integration of knowledge context: importance of good ‘user experience’ (QoE) (e.g. iPhone) QoS: technical and performance parameters linking/translating subjective (social, contextual,...) dimensions to technical QoS-parameters creation of new, interdisciplinary methodology Wapedia-application: case-study (N=10) controlled research setting

13. User involvement in living lab research Phase 3B: 5-step interdisciplinary methodology 1. Pre-usage user research -detection of relevant user experience dimensions and expectations: e.g. price, navigation, speed, display size, … -multi-method approach (e.g. free listing, prioritizing, conjoint analysis, QoE-dimensions questionnaire,...) 2. Pre-usage translation workshops -find optimal match between ‘user-indicated’ QoE dimensions and ‘measurable QoS parameters’ (e.g. Simulation exercises) -social scientists + engineers 3. Monitoring during usage -usage scenarios for test users -different reception levels + monitoring of ‘signal strength’ -software probe model (cfr. Deryckere, Joseph et al, 2008)

14. User involvement in living lab research Phase 3B: QoS optimisation vs. QoE 4. Post-usage questions on device -after completion of usage scenario  questions on device (general experience, frustration, speed, …) 5. Post-usage Comparison (expectations vs. experience) -user experience gaps? Multi-method approach cfr. phase 1 reduction in speed (lower [dBm] general experience drops E.g. User 10 (male, 30)

15. User involvement in living lab research Conclusion User-driven involvement in living labs? Discrepancy theory versus practice future-oriented technology research: role of the (future) user! continuous interaction (early phases) integrated and interdisciplinary approach methodological reorientation (e.g. more pull-driven living labs) push vs. pull debate different stakeholders  different goals translation and interaction between disciplines as missing link

16. User involvement in living lab research Questions and contact KatrienR.DeMoor@ugent.be Katrien.Berte@ugent.be Research Group for Media & ICT IBBT / Ghent University www.mict.be – www.ibbt.be UGent